Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Executive Summary of the Executive Summary
So the Horowitz Report (here) was just released, and we Ricochetti are already suffering serious indigestion. My buddy Gary Robbins has already lamented:
Gary Robbins (View Comment): The Executive Summary is 15 pages long! Can we please have an Executive Summary of the Executive Summary?
OK, I’ll give it a shot, but I think that this deserves a separate post. Incidentally, Gary is not quite correct. The executive summary is actually 19 pages long.
As a matter of terminology, the Horowitz Report involves the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation and four individual investigations on current and former members of the Trump campaign — George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn. The initial decision to open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was made in July 2016.
1. The decision to open the Crossfire Hurricane and four related investigations did not violate DoJ or FBI guidelines or procedures, which the Report characterized as a “low threshold” and a “judgment call” that could be made at a relatively low level within the FBI. The decision was made by Counterintelligence Division Assistant Director Bill Priestap. This decision followed consultation and consensus including the FBI Deputy Director (Andrew McCabe), the FBI General Counsel (James Baker), and Section Chief Peter Strzok (who reported to Priestap). Strzok and Lisa Page made “statements of hostility toward then candidate Trump and statements of support for then candidate Hillary Clinton.” While Lisa Page attended some discussions, she did not play a role in the decisions to open the investigations.
2. The Horowitz team did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced Priestap’s decision to open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Priestap was Strzok’s boss, and while there was evidence of political bias on the part of Strzok, he wasn’t the decision-maker.
3. The Horowitz team did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decision to open the four individual investigations. These were technically opened by Strzok, who was biased, but were a result of a consensus process that included his boss Priestap.
4. The Crossfire Hurricane team’s use of more intrusive techniques, including the use of Confidential Human Sources (CHSs) to record conversations with high-level Trump campaign officials, was properly approved by Priestap under FBI policies. The next point criticizes the policies.
5. The Horowitz Report recommends changing FBI policy to require consultation with DoJ in advance of conducting CHS operations involving advisors to a major party candidate’s presidential campaign. Policies require such consultation in “numerous other sensitive circumstances,” but prior policy did not require it in this instance.
6. There were very serious problems with the initial FISA application. The report is brutal on this point. “Our review found that FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are ‘scrupulously accurate.’ We identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation, based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed.” The report details “seven significant inaccuracies and omissions” in the initial FISA application.
7. There were additional, very serious problems with the subsequent three renewal FISA applications. None of the initial seven inaccuracies and omissions were corrected, and the report identified “10 additional significant errors in the renewal applications.” As a result, the DoJ “officials who reviewed one or more of the renewal applications, including [former Deputy AG] Yates, [former acting AG and acting DAG] Boente, and [former Deputy AG] Rosenstein, did not have accurate and complete information at the time they approved them.”
8. “We concluded that the failures described above and in this report represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications. . . . Although some of the factual misstatements and omissions we found in this review were arguably more significant than others, we believe that all of them taken together resulted in FISA applications that made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case.” The Horowitz report does not speculate regarding whether accurate and complete information would have led senior DoJ officials, or the FISA court, to decline to approve any or all of the four FISA applications.
9. The serious errors in the FISA application process implicate the chain of command at the FBI, including senior officials. Again, the report is quite brutal on this point. “That so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations that was briefed to the highest levels within the FBI, and that FBI officials expected would eventually be subjected to close scrutiny, raised significant questions regarding the FBI chain of command’s management and supervision of the FISA process. … In our view, this was a failure not only of the operational team, but also of the managers and supervisors, including senior officials, in the chain of command.”
10. While not violating a policy, the FBI sent a participant to a strategic intelligence briefing given by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to candidate Trump and his national security advisors for investigative purposes, which “could potentially interfere with the expectation of trust and good faith among participants in strategic intelligence briefings, thereby frustrating their purpose.” In other words, the FBI sent a “spy” into what was supposed to be an important national security briefing for someone who might be the next President — Hillary Clinton was also briefed, as were the VP candidates. The spy was not named, and was identified only as “SSA 1,” and described as “the supervisor for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.” (Context indicates that this person was not Priestap, Strzok, or Lisa Page.) Senior FBI officials approved this action by consensus after a meeting, including former FBI Deputy Director McCabe and former FBI General Counsel Baker. Horowitz recommended hat the FBI establish a policy regarding the use of defensive and transition briefings for investigative purposes, including DoJ approval. The decision to send “SSA 1” to the Trump briefing was discussed at high levels of the FBI, including Deputy Director McCabe and General Counsel Baker, but was not approved by DoJ.
I think that these are the major points.
Published in Elections
Horowitz did not even look at the issue of who names this fiasco “Crossfire Hurricane”. One theory is that it was inspired by a Rolling Stones lyric because of a secret British spy in a Whoopi Goldberg movie who called himself Jumping Jack Flash. Which, if true, is kind of a dead giveaway that the whole fiasco was about the dossier.
But was the person who actually made that dork naming selection ever questioned? What other things has he/she/they named and were the names cool or lame? Does he/she/they always wear camo underwear and buy pretty much anything at the mall or on Amazon labelled “tactical”?
And did the code-namer ever meet Christopher Steele? Steele seems like the kind of guy who lies to women in airport bars and gets away with it because of a British accent and a trench coat from the Peter Jennings Collection at Burberry’s. I don’t think I could pull off a story about having just completed a mission to track
SovietRussian agents to the (non-existent)SovietRussian consulate in Miami where they were planning to order sleeper agent Carter Page to either kill or sell self-help books-on-tape to any Ukrainians who stay in Trump hotels or something equally stupid, like say, the dossier.Did the decision to open the initial investigation rely on false information? Who provided the information to Priestap? Peter and Lisa? Just Peter? What was that information? Did that file include false information about Carter Page? What did Priestap say to Horowitz when questioned for the report?
Just “mistakes” and typos and totally in good faith as can be seen in this unredacted draft of the first FISA renewal application:
I am a bit sorry to see the comments veering into complaints about notable Trump critics. I think that it’s better to focus on the facts from the Horowitz Report.
These are good questions. I was just summarizing the executive summary. I recommend that you dig in to the report itself, and let us know what you find.
Personally, I want to see more comments of this sort. We put up with three years of their garbage — garbage many of them had to know was garbage. Call them out. Expose the liars. Heads on figurative pikes as a warning to future generations. They have done their part in fracturing this country. There must be consequences.
Yes, I’m a vindictive little cuss!
I wonder how “low level” an FBI agent has to be to NOT know that investigating a Presidential campaign is a BIG BIG deal, and maybe they should ask for advice. I then wonder how high level an FBI agent need be to investigate a President-elect. Hey, we haven’t even gotten to an inaugurated POTUS yet.
I would be glad to join the complaints about notable Trump critics. But if that means I have to listen to them or read them, then I’m not playing. And even if I could bring myself to do that, I’d hate to detract from your focus on the report.
Good Drew, except wherever you say “they” or “them” or “these” maybe you should say “you guys” just to keep things equal.
Maybe they are just too smart to be weathermen, but still just as clueless.
Personally, I’m just curious as to whether those “notable Trump critics” will ever acknowledge being wrong.
I still can’t help but suspect that they were/are “wrong” just for not being unconditionally pro-Trump in the first place.
You can “suspect” anything you want. But they’re wrong because they made verifiably false statements of “fact”. And ridiculed people who called them on it.
For some, maybe. Not in my case. I’ll revise that opinion if they aren’t willing to admit now that they were wrong.
Absolutely amazing that all the “mistakes” were in one direction only, to smear Trump and his team. Kind of defies logic.
Horowitz, as IG was very limited as to who he could investigate and what he could do. Durham and Barr are not under those restraints, so lets hold off on exonerating the FBI and the rest of the intel community of not being biased. There’s more shoes that are going to drop.
There was a very prescient insight in NR’s Editors Podcast.
Democrats had really hoped that the Mueller Report would vanquish Trump and the Republicans. (I have seen memes of Trump being arrested.j It did not. The Mueller Report showed bad behavior, but not criminal behavior,
Trump had really hoped that the Horowitz Report would vanquish the FBI and the so-called “Deep State.” (I have seen memes of Comey being arrested.) It did not. The Horowitz Report showed sloppy behavior but no evidence of malice or improper motive.
Lets see what Durham an Barr come up with.
No. I did not believe that it was “garbage” and I din’t Believe that it is “garbage.”
Well, you have excelled at that! I think that you have missed the mark, but you certainly have not been a slouch!
Just because someone disagrees with you, that doesn’t make them a “liar.”
Oh, what a great idea! I don’t think that the French Revolution worked out so well. But contrast, the American Revolution was notable for not putting dissenter’s heads on pikes. Likewise, after the Civil War, Lincoln did his best to include the South back into the nation. Despite hotheads, Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were never arrested.
I assert that Trump has fractured the Nation, unlike Reagan who united the nation.
If Trump loses in 2020, and we lose the Senate, will you accept the consequences?
Thank you for your insight.
Amen.
That may be true. For example, after Mueller’s flawed testimony on July 24, 2019, Trump had his impeachable telephone call the next day on July 25, 2019.
A quick observation. Jerry referred to me as his “buddy.” Boy, that makes conversation more possible. When we met, we were able to discuss Trump’s strengths and weaknesses. I praised Trump for judges, taxes and regulations. Jerry expressed his frustrations about Trump’s self-defeating behavior.
A hallmark of Ricochet is the granting of respect for different points of view.
I think that one thing that helped us is that we are both lawyers, and have had to argue different sides of arguments. For example, I have represented both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence. I represent both men and women in family law cases. Jerry has represented clients likewise, sometimes representing plaintiffs and sometimes representing defendants.
Britannica on Jeff Davis:
“After the war he was imprisoned for two years and indicted for treason but was never tried.”
I think I could live with that. [;)]
“Trump has fractured the Nation” only in the sense that that as a conservative, JFK Democrat he has refused to bow down to the progressives. Just to name an obvious example, Abraham Lincoln was a vastly more divisive figure, sanctified only after death.
The same people who bathe in extreme inferences of evil or venal motive for every one of Trump’s actions and utterances are now trumpeting the Horowitz Standard for judging motives and intentions. Apparently, they can (a) believe that James Comey and Andrew McCabe were good guys just doing their job, gosh darn it (despite an extensive pattern of “mistakes” that make their purity of motive unlikely as hell) but (b) Trump’s motives are always venal or evil and his influence baleful despite a record of policy outcomes that are spectacular by any standard. Comey and McCabe are wonderful, innocent guys until proven otherwise (against a very high bar of proof –unless and until they actually confess or multiple co-conspirators rat them out and also have documentary proof) but Trump is always Hitler regardless of his actual record. How does someone incompetent, stupid and evil beat the sainted Obama in every performance category without ever having a single intelligent of virtuous thought or intention?
The failure to apply the Horowitz Standard to Trump, the perverse decision to begrudge every success, the habit of applying the most negative language possible with the unambiguous intent of denigrating the intellect and moral worth of Trump voters is all bad enough but to then decry “divisiveness” is pathetic.
To the NeverTrumper, I say make a choice. Either apply the Horowitz Standard uniformly and stop being divisive yourself or go full Schiff and say that your loathing of Donald Trump justifies every hypocrisy and grants you a dispensation from social mores whenever you feel like it so you can become the caricature you claim to hate.
Or, here’s a radical idea: How about everybody, on both sides, be honest about what they think on an issue by issue basis and assume good faith on the part of the other? How about we all stop using terms like “NeverTrump” as a term of dismissal that echos the left’s use of terms like “racist.”
I am not a NeverTrumper, but the amount of abuse they (and even those who are not NeverTrumpers but who simply don’t like him) receive on a regular basis is maddening. The idea that we need to be unwaveringly loyal to a particular man or else be cast out is antithetical to everything the conservative movement stands for.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
Gary, you have made this assertion before and you are just plain wrong. You probably don’t remember Tip O’Neill saying that Reagan should get his tax cuts and that when people were hurt as a result, he’d “take some Republican scalps in the mid-terms”. Yes, they had a “6 o’clock friendship”, but they were enemies politically. You probably never read the Mercury News stories about Reagan where some idiots claimed he had Alzheimer’s through most of his presidency. (We didn’t call it Pravda West for nothing.) Half my co-workers regarded him as the worst president in living memory. The only difference was the times. Reagan’s enemies didn’t have the internet/WWW to spread lies about him, and the culture wasn’t as crude then, and not every difference was personalized. Trump didn’t cause that change. He just deals with it.
I don’t have an issue with anybody finding much about Trump distasteful. Nor do I insist upon or practice unwavering loyalty.
What I can’t stand is the too-common phenomenon of the continuous self-conscious need to remind everyone that this distaste for all things Trump is emblematic of some form of superiority (moral, intellectual, aesthetic). Peggy Noonan, Jonah Goldberg, and William Kristol are incredibly tiresome in this way. It is less about critiquing what Trump just said or did and more about the justification of their pre-existing posture.
I thought Obama was a pompous poseur. But that perception did not define me nor how I thought others did or should view me. It did not require me to trash his every action or utterance. In contrast, there is a palpable, weird self-consciousness and appetite for vindication that animates so much of NeverTrumpism.
Case in point, our own @garyrobbins who is otherwise an intelligent fine fellow has grasped at every Mueller leak, bent over backward to bestow credit and honor on every anti-Trump witness in the impeachment fiasco no matter how disingenuous, partisan or silly. He is indifferent about the inherent unfairness of the sustained assault on the Trump presidency. Somehow all attacks are Trump’s own fault and further evidence of his lack of fitness. There is some weird need for vindication at work, a burning need for some crash-and-burn scenario to unleash an avalanche of pent-up I-told-you-so’s about this flawed man. That psychological state is not Trump’s fault.
I admit to having very low expectations about Mr. Trump. It was enough to keep Hillary out and hope that nothing terrible happened for four years. I fully expected errors, scandals, and amateurish policy approaches. But the level of success on so many fronts is stunning.
I remember most of the things you have said.
What I also remember is that Reagan was in constant outreach to everyone, and saw someone who disagreed with him 20% of the time as an 80% ally. Reagan won 49 states, and even carried New York City! Despite a strong economy, Trump will likely lose if the Dems don’t nominate a flaming socialist.